Anthony Trufanov ParadigmLast changed 2/10 1:52P CDT
UK & GBN
Add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
College people, add: email@example.com
Please put useful info about the round in the subject of the email.
I will flow and vote on things you said. NEGs can say whatever but the less it says the plan is bad the more annoying it is. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Ks are good if there are DAs hiding inside them. AFFs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose.
Tech determines truth unless your argument is an affront to obvious reality or it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument.
I will also do everything in my power to avoid indiscriminately killing people. If this sounds like your ALT, reconsider.
Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to write the least interventionary ballot. This means:
1. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. I will not assume stuff that is not obvious - for example, I will not cross apply arguments from one flow to another, will not assume impact D applies to impacts you didn't say it applies to, will not assume a CP solves something you didn't say it solves, etc.
2. I will intervene if I have to.
3. When something is thorny or annoying I have often found myself starting the decision by looking for ways to vote without resolving that thing. With proper framing and argument choice you can rig this process in your favor.
For whatever reason I have voted NEG slightly more than AFF.
The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them.
If you start prep, you take a minimum of 10 seconds. None of that start stop nonsense.
I am not really a small talk guy.
Please merge your speech docs before the speech if prepping separately is a thing you do.
High schoolers - if you think your wiki is good (has cites/open source for every card you have read OR detailed descriptions of arguments that are not card reliant) tell me after the debate and if I agree you each get +1 speaker point.
I like when the NEG says the opposite of the AFF. How much I enjoy your DA depends how much of the AFF it clashes with. But also, both high school and college seem like they are stuck with some slim pickings here, so if something stupid finds its way into a 2NR I get it.
However I still do not care where Rubio or Romney are spending PC or what the House science committee is focusing on but it's on the brink. The politics DA is a barren wasteland.
Relatedly, the more I think about intrinsicness the more it makes sense to me. I dunno what will happen if someone actually debates this out in front of me but I am curious to find out.
I care about the DA turning the case a lot.
"Framing pages" are dumb. Maybe they could be smart? I have yet to see a proof of concept for this that I care about.
Case offense is strategic and funny.
My default is judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo.
The AFF should be able to win a process CP doesn't compete if they are competent and don't drop things. Granting competition makes the theory debate more difficult because it enhances the narrative that the CP is a germane opportunity cost.
Good for the NEG on theory, especially condo. I care the most about clash as a theory impact. Nothing but condo is a voting issue.
Intrinsic perms can be ok depending on the counterplan.
Vagueness in all its forms probably not a VI but can implicate internal links and solvency.
Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX. I think this is one of the best way to find inconsistencies in neg interpretations which you can exploit to your advantage in rebuttals.
Cards matter - all else being equal, if you read more cards supporting/fleshing out your interpretation and demonstrating why the aff doesn't meet I will be more likely to vote for you. I am unlikely to care about a cardless T 2NC.
I am a pedant myself so I am more sympathetic to pedantic T arguments than most.
OK for specific Ks on the NEG, bad for random backfile trash, bad for K AFFs, death good = L.
If your K is closer to a DA I am more likely to care about it. So - links should be specific, causal, and about the plan.
AFFs' path to victory is proving that the K does not do these things. Therefore, reductionism DA + perm is the most persuasive approach to answering most K arguments.
Same thing if there is no plan text - in a FW debate, the AFF wins by demonstrating that engaging in resolutional debate/being forced to do so intrinsically causes something bad, the NEG wins by demonstrating that the AFF's offense is not intrinsic to resolutional debate and theirs is.
The fad of spotting that the K AFF links to topic DAs to make it look more benign is not really getting it done for me. While it is very considerate of the AFF not to make link answers against DAs that demonstrably have nothing to do with the 1AC it is intellectually nonsensical and relying on AFFs' good faith in this area does not seem like a sustainable arrangement.
I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan.
If the AFF has negated the resolution and the NEG responds with a topical proposal, shouldn't the NEG be the one that gets perms? Isn't that already how we evaluate TVAs? Just a thought. Be creative.
The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.
Most of my points have been between 28.4 and 28.9. This seems to be below the 2019 curve so I am adjusting.
Wrong strategic choices, being stupid about substance, CXs annoying/pointless, arguments were bad, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks. The opposite of that/being awesome = higher speaks.
Other arg stuff
Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Claiming you said words you did not say is an L.
Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is is entirely up to me.